The Problem of Imperfect Revelation: Your Thoughts?

[bennyboy]

Being able to have done differently than you did?

That's pure illusory. At every instance of choice, people do the exact thing that they're conditioned to do, and they cannot act in a manner that is inconsistent with their nature or beyond their ability to conceive. They can condition themselves to do different things in the future, but the conditioning which leads to them is what determines them. All of our choices are determined. The retrospective recognition of alternatives creates the illusion of freedom, but this is after a decision is made. To say you could have chose differently, is to say you could have lived in a different universe. A puppet is not free, even if it likes its strings.

---

Furthermore, can anyone give an example of a time where they chose differently than they did? Since they could have, surely it's been done before.

You are stating things as fact that are not known to be facts. Basically, you've stated the determinist position. But stating something and proving them are very different things. If you want to assert that things could NOT have turned out other than they have, you have the BOP. Show that for any given state of the universe, no other subsequent state could have been possible.

[The Reality Salesman01]

You are stating things as fact that are not known to be facts. Basically, you've stated the determinist position.

I've stated that what we choose, is what we choose. That's a fact. When you choose an apple over an orange. The deciscion of apple exists. Before the choice is made, all we can do is speculate. But after the choice is made, all we have is THAT choice. Right?

If you want to assert that things could NOT have turned out other than they have, you have the BOP.

I think you may have this part a bit confused. I'm rejecting the concept of free-will on the grounds that it has no evidence. In every instance of choice, there are no re-dos. Once the decision is made, that's it. Every choice is the ONLY choice that is made, for every instance in which it is considered. My choice in words, my choice in clothes for the day. All of them. To say they could have been different is pure conjecture. If you think they could have been different, then you are making a claim that is not consistent with what we experience in this universe. One can always do something different in the future, but that choice, at the time it is chosen, is the only one that will be, and therefore, it is the only choice that can be. Retrospectively, any other, did not happen, and therein could not have happened.

Show that for any given state of the universe, no other subsequent state could have been possible.

I only have my experience of this universe to form my knowledge from. In this universe certain things are true, and others are simply not. What I said was- To say that somebody could have chosen differently, is like saying they could have existed in a different universe. The choice was made. Period. Any post-decision speculation is conjecture at best. Think of the other types of claims that could also be made. Why would anybody that hears any of these take on the burden of proof upon hearing them in order to reject them?

We could have been conditioned to live on Saturn.

Pigs could have evolved with wings.

People could learn to shoot plasma from their eyes.


Ahem...On what grounds does anybody make these claims, and why would anybody else have to prove that in our universe these things did not happen?
Free-will is popular, but that doesn't make it true. Upon closer examination of the notion of being able to have done differently than one did, we see that it is an intellectually incoherent conjecture that does not correlate with our experience of reality.

[bennyboy]

Okay, so in a nutshell, you feel that there's only one past, and it's set in stone. Let's assume this is true, and there aren't goofy little quarky things happening (like QM particles getting sent slightly into the past) which throw this fairly apparent truth into doubt. Fair enough. Now, let's look at the practical application of your idea: understanding something in the present, or predicting the future. If your viewpoint has any more merit than the concept of free will, then show how it applies to real-life situations.

In the case of free will, I have plenty of applications: I can sit in the candy store, hummm and hawww for a while, and decide which candy bar I want. Your philosophical assertion that I was foreordained by a determinist process to choose the Mars Bar, rather than the peanut butter cups, really doesn't add anything useful: only AFTER I've made my choice can you smugly announce "You had to make that choice, because your thinking is a purely deterministic process."

Yes, some things function so coursely that they can be predicted. For example, bouncing billiard balls on a well-crafted table. Fine. So predict what major my 9 year-old daughter will choose when (if?) she goes to university. I'll grant you the Godly power to know the exact state of every QM particle on Earth. You still won't be able to do it.

You say that, in looking back, determinism is obvious. But that is rarely useful-- only in a court of law, or in seeing if Johnson really scored a touchdown, does it matter. The reality is that looking forward, we have to account for the very many branches of possibility of which we are aware. And we have a word for navigating those many diverging paths throught the fog of war, often making decisions on a whim "just because"-- free will. Yes, you are free to confidently assert, "Yes, yes, we don't know some things, but we COULD with enough computing power." But THAT is as baseless an assertion as the idea of "could have done elsewise."

[The Reality Salesman01]

Okay, so in a nutshell, you feel that there's only one past, and it's set in stone. Let's assume this is true, and there aren't goofy little quarky things happening (like QM particles getting sent slightly into the past) which throw this fairly apparent truth into doubt.

If you pick a Mars Bar over a Reese’s, the existence or behavior of anti-matter doesn’t change the decision in the slightest. Not sure what that has to do with anything, really.

Fair enough. Now, let's look at the practical application of your idea: understanding something in the present, or predicting the future. If your viewpoint has any more merit than the concept of free will, then show how it applies to real-life situations.

I’m sorry but I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying. Also, you seem to be under the impression that free-will is self-evident because you really feel like its true. Have you ever seen an optical illusion? If somebody is convinced that their experience of the image they are seeing is the right one, then there is very little that can be said to convince them otherwise.

In the case of free will, I have plenty of applications: I can sit in the candy store, hummm and hawww for a while, and decide which candy bar I want. Your philosophical assertion that I was foreordained by a determinist process to choose the Mars Bar, rather than the peanut butter cups, really doesn't add anything useful: only AFTER I've made my choice can you smugly announce "You had to make that choice, because your thinking is a purely deterministic process."

There’s nothing smug about it. The underlying neurophysiological processes in your brain that are conditioned to desire candy, that develop a preference, or a skepticism, are the determinants. The conscious experience of the ultimate outcome creates the illusion of your conscious mind being the author of the effect. There is not a single shred of evidence you can bring to the table that supports that as being true. In fact, studies have shown instances of decisions being made moments, sometimes seconds, before your conscious mind is even aware of them.

Yes, some things function so coursely that they can be predicted. For example, bouncing billiard balls on a well-crafted table. Fine. So predict what major my 9 year-old daughter will major in when (if?) she goes to university. I'll grant you the Godly power to know the exact state of every QM particle on Earth. You still won't be able to do it.

Again, not applicable to what I’m saying. You seem to be confused with fatalism. I’m not saying that everything is preordained in the manner that you are describing.
Take your billiard ball example:

Free-Will suggests that the billiard ball could behave differently than what is prescribed by the laws of nature. The billiard ball is going to behave in accordance with the properties of a billiard ball. Those properties are the determinants. Your mind has different determinants that dictate its behavior: Genetics, experiences, biases, etc. The choices it makes are products of those determinants and can only be altered by altering the determinants. The decisions it makes are determined. They are not pre-ordained or set in stone on some master log in the universe (at least, that’s not what I’m saying). I’m saying that the notion of free-will stems from the belief that we are the conscious author of our thoughts. This is false. We associate our identities with a particular channel of information, but if we are truly honest with ourselves, the origin of the information flowing in that channel is a mystery, and the determinants of its effects do not begin in consciousness.

You say that, in looking back, determinism is obvious. But that is rarely useful

Understanding the true nature of the mind, and exactly what determinants impact certain behaviors is one of the most important tenets of psychology. It’s quite useful.

[bennyboy]

If you pick a Mars Bar over a Reese’s, the existence or behavior of anti-matter doesn’t change the decision in the slightest. Not sure what that has to do with anything, really.

I didn't say anything about anti-matter. Anyway, I said let's assume there are NOT those things. So unless you are asserting them now, then why pick at it?

Fair enough. Now, let's look at the practical application of your idea: understanding something in the present, or predicting the future. If your viewpoint has any more merit than the concept of free will, then show how it applies to real-life situations.

I’m sorry but I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying. Also, you seem to be under the impression that free-will is self-evident because you really feel like its true. Have you ever seen an optical illusion? If somebody is convinced that their experience of the image they are seeing is the right one, then there is very little that can be said to convince them otherwise.

No. I'm saying that if you want to make assertions about determinism, then you'll have to prove them.

As for the fallibility of experience showing a lack of free will, I think the opposite case is just as good: the fallibility of the senses shows that the world as we experience it, and the deterministic universe you claim we are experiencing, are not the same.

There’s nothing smug about it. The underlying neurophysiological processes in your brain that are conditioned to desire candy, that develop a preference, or a skepticism, are the determinants. The conscious experience of the ultimate outcome creates the illusion of your conscious mind being the author of the effect. There is not a single shred of evidence you can bring to the table that supports that as being true. In fact, studies have shown instances of decisions being made moments, sometimes seconds, before your conscious mind is even aware of them.

I know of some of these studies, but you should link the ones you favor.

You are equating intent with awareness. The studies I know start with the subject being primed toward an action, and then signalling when they become aware of part of that process. But the intent is already there.

Again, not applicable to what I’m saying. You seem to be confused with fatalism. I’m not saying that everything is preordained in the manner that you are describing.

Nope. Unless you have random or hidden variables (or free will), fatalism and good ol' decision-making are identical.

Take your billiard ball example:

Free-Will suggests that the billiard ball could behave differently than what is prescribed by the laws of nature. The billiard ball is going to behave in accordance with the properties of a billiard ball. Those properties are the determinants. Your mind has different determinants that dictate its behavior: Genetics, experiences, biases, etc. The choices it makes are products of those determinants and can only be altered by altering the determinants. The decisions it makes are determined. They are not pre-ordained or set in stone on some master log in the universe (at least, that’s not what I’m saying). I’m saying that the notion of free-will stems from the belief that we are the conscious author of our thoughts. This is false. We associate our identities with a particular channel of information, but if we are truly honest with ourselves, the origin of the information flowing in that channel is a mystery, and the determinants of its effects do not begin in consciousness.

I don't think it's necessary to look at free will as you are looking at it. Free will is not the generation of ideas: it is the ability to arbitrarily choose among a variety of choices. I also think you're saying that the conscious mind is the self, and that any unconscious process is not the self, and therefore decisions made unconsciously or pre-consciously cannot be termed free will, since the self didn't have access to them during the process of formation. I disagree with this model of self, and this definition of free will.

You say that, in looking back, determinism is obvious. But that is rarely useful

Understanding the true nature of the mind, and exactly what determinants impact certain behaviors is one of the most important tenets of psychology. It’s quite useful.

Prove it. Show me that you can predict an individual's future choices. Predicting their past choices, and using this ability as evidence of a philosophical position, is much less impressive than producing usable results.